Revenge and justice

[EclecticEnnui]

A hypothetical scenario is you or someone you love has been held captive and raped, say, three times and beaten to the point of barely being able to move; all within six hours. You recognize who did it since you're the victim or you were in the same place where it happened, but you were helpless. You can even track this man (yes, it's a man) down, somehow. The question is would you go straight to the police for a rape kit analysis so the perpetrator can be arrested and hopefully sentenced to jail time or would you get revenge on the perpetrator because jail time isn't enough? When I say revenge, I mean "forcing the perceived wrongdoer to suffer the same or greater pain than that which was originally inflicted". You can torture him to death, like cutting off his penis. Plus, you will get away with it. What do you choose or are inclined to choose and why?

If you really don't know because the scenario is personal, hypothetical, and devastating, then try at least using the same scenario with someone you don't know, but definitely feel for. You'll still have to think hard. It's obviously serious. If it happened to me, I'd be inclined to go straight to the police. I don't believe two wrongs make a right. The perpetrator is likely mentally scarred, so he should be incarcerated and receive psychological treatment. He's a human being, after all. Almost everyone deserves a second chance. Although what he did was horrible, I wouldn't want to treat him similarly like an object by getting revenge on him. What would revenge do for me in the long run? It's not gonna undo my abuse and suffering. It'll likely just give me temporary satisfaction at the most. Because this scenario is hypothetical, I don't know for sure what I'd do, but this is my best guess.

Btw, if the scenario sounds familiar to the cinematic original and/or remake I Spit on Your Grave, about rape and revenge, that's because it is. I made this thread because of the discussions I was having with people relating to the films and how those people were strongly supportive of revenge. This doesn't mean, however, that this thread should be taken any less seriously. Rape, revenge, and morality are obviously real issues.

[chairmankem]

I would choose the latter, if it were a choice, because I am human and I have human emotions such as anger.

[Drakim]

At 10/29/10 10:40 PM, chairmankem wrote: I would choose the latter, if it were a choice, because I am human and I have human emotions such as anger.

But the kidnapper/rapist is also a human, it was also his human emotions that made him do these terrible things. Are you gonna sink down to his level? Become a brute whose only objective is to hurt this person to satisfy yourself with revenge? Is it really that different from somebody whose only concern is themselves so they kidnap and rape to satisfy their sexual desires?

[satanbrain]

At 10/30/10 07:27 AM, Drakim wrote:

Are you gonna sink down to his level? Become a brute whose only objective is to hurt this person to satisfy yourself with revenge?
Yes.

Is it really that different from somebody whose only concern is themselves so they kidnap and rape to satisfy their sexual desires?

No it isn't but there is an opportunity to torture someone and get away with it.

[BezFriend]

Have you watched Law Abiding Citizen (2009)? There are legal options that would satisfy the thirst for revenge. However, the same "revenge" would come back and haunt you even after your dead.

Another more children friendly analogy is Sasuke from Naruto. Or that scary movie where the guy who do harm to you was just a pawn.

[PicoFulp]

"Revenge is an act of passion; vengeance of justice. Injuries are revenged; crimes are avenged." ~ Samuel Johnson

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

"When you plan revenge, you are digging two graves." -Chinese proverb

[adrshepard]

At 10/29/10 10:05 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: The perpetrator is likely mentally scarred, so he should be incarcerated and receive psychological treatment. He's a human being, after all.

Are you so naive to think that the majority of people who commit crimes aren't vicious, predatory, lacking self-control, etc., but instead suffer from some mental illness that requires medical treatment? It can be a good thing to have faith in the nobility of men, but making excuses for someone who has done the horrible things you describe is just ridiculuous. Just accept that, for all practical connotations of the word, some people are just evil.

At 10/30/10 07:27 AM, Drakim wrote: But the kidnapper/rapist is also a human, it was also his human emotions that made him do these terrible things. Are you gonna sink down to his level? Become a brute whose only objective is to hurt this person to satisfy yourself with revenge?

Why is it considered "sinking to his level?" Is righteous outrage just as terrible as predatory lust? He's the one that has wronged you, whereas you simply wanted to live in peace. Since quotes seem to be in season, take this one from Malcom X: "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

[Drakim]

At 10/30/10 12:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: Why is it considered "sinking to his level?" Is righteous outrage just as terrible as predatory lust? He's the one that has wronged you, whereas you simply wanted to live in peace.

The whole point is that you are becoming the very thing you despise by doing violence to satisfy your bloodlust, even if you can convince yourself that it's a just and fair bloodlust.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't defend yourself, I'm saying seeking out this person for the sole reason of causing him harm makes you evil too, even if you were wronged earlier.

You seem literary to be arguing that two wrongs make one right. This person wronged you, and you are outraged and will wrong him back. Problem solved.

What really should be done, is what is necessary to limit the damage that has been caused and prevent further damage from happening. If the person in question is a psychopath with no regrets, then lock him up, or even kill him if that's the only option. But don't fucking go beating him up for your own enjoyment, so that your thirst for revenge is sated. If you do that, then the whole situation becomes merely two criminal evil men attacking each other.

Since quotes seem to be in season, take this one from Malcom X: "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

Malcom X is an idiot.

[chairmankem]

At 10/30/10 07:27 AM, Drakim wrote: But the kidnapper/rapist is also a human, it was also his human emotions that made him do these terrible things. Are you gonna sink down to his level? Become a brute whose only objective is to hurt this person to satisfy yourself with revenge?

Yeah, I will. Because, again, I am human and I am ruled by human emotions. The brief degradation of my moral values is something I can live with, especially if it will enable me to derive some kind of base satisfaction out of revenge.

Is it really that different from somebody whose only concern is themselves so they kidnap and rape to satisfy their sexual desires?

Yes and no. Don't we move ourselves to fulfill our emotional and physical needs and desires? If you are starving, wouldn't it be justifiable (or at least explainable) if you killed another human being for a scrap of food? If I were a soldier in a victorious army and was participating in the sacking of a city, or a tribal warrior in a raid against an enemy clan, what would prevent me from raping, looting, killing, and pillaging?

I hope this doesn't sound terribly cliché, but morals are relative, and our set of moral values is only really applicable to organized society because we need to live with one another. When this breaks down, e.g. in wartime or in a total disaster, our morals go out the window. Likewise, if I were a soldier or tribal warrior and I had returned to my country or tribe victorious, I would have to abide by law and custom again.

[Drakim]

At 10/30/10 02:47 PM, chairmankem wrote: stuff

But would you then blame me for wanting to lock you up because you pose a danger to the rest of society? You said it yourself, you would willingly cast aside your morals when your emotions become too much. It's not like anybody is perfect. I think all humans would eventually cave in to their emotions if pressed too much, but you seem to be saying that if you really hate somebody from the bottom of your gut, you'd kill them without question.

[chairmankem]

At 10/30/10 12:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: Just accept that, for all practical connotations of the word, some people are just evil.

The main difference between those who exhibit criminal tendencies and those who do not is primarily a matter of self-restraint. However, that lack of restraint is what makes them dangerous to society, and consequently evil.

At 10/30/10 02:19 PM, Drakim wrote: The whole point is that you are becoming the very thing you despise by doing violence to satisfy your bloodlust, even if you can convince yourself that it's a just and fair bloodlust.

I deplore violence just as much as just about any human being, yet I don't think that would stop me. I do not hate the state or idea of being a torturer in the same way that I would despise the physical torturer. I may or may not like trees. I would not like to become a tree. However, if I had to become a tree for a while and changed back, I would not regret having been a tree nor would I attempt to justify my decision to become a tree.

Of course, this might be a tad ridiculous, but the point is that I wouldn't really try to assign a moral quality to my actions. It isn't right, and it may be construed as wrong, but to me the action will have felt right at the time, and that is all that really matters.

What really should be done, is what is necessary to limit the damage that has been caused and prevent further damage from happening. If the person in question is a psychopath with no regrets, then lock him up, or even kill him if that's the only option.

That would be a decision made by a society, not by an individual. It is relying on the assumption that a higher power will take care of the problem for you, whether that be the justice of the multitude or that of God.

But don't fucking go beating him up for your own enjoyment, so that your thirst for revenge is sated.

Why not? If that person is in your power and you are removed in some way from the authority of organized society, he may as well be regarded as vermin or trash to be discarded. Besides, if the only thing you can be sure of is your own thoughts, how can you tell for sure if that person actually feels pain or not? Wouldn't it be the same as beating a punching bag?

If you do that, then the whole situation becomes merely two criminal evil men attacking each other.

Criminals really don't exist outside the societal definition thereof. If there are two people in the entire world and one kills the other, that person isn't a criminal because there is nobody to agree with on what is a crime or not. However, if there are a million people in a city and one kills another for no good reason, then that person is a criminal.

[QuantumPenguin]

What sense of satisfaction can you possibly gain from hurting someone, unless you are mentally ill yourself?

The answer is none, what you gain is a sense of security. The base instinct you are referring to is the fear that what happened could happen again. This is why we send people to prison, to teach them how to not do it again. Admittedly it fails hard, but not systematically, simply because people don't have any fucking idea how to correctly rehabilitate dangerous people, and instead the prison system becomes some kind of perverse "revenge" system with no results and huge resource drains. It's complete nonsense.

[chairmankem]

At 10/30/10 03:23 PM, Drakim wrote: But would you then blame me for wanting to lock you up because you pose a danger to the rest of society?

To some extent, no, but then again I wouldn't let you. I would consider it as an imposition of your own moral beliefs upon others because I am merely acting as any similarly outraged individual might act. What's dangerous about it exactly other than the fact that I would be taking the law into my own hands?

You said it yourself, you would willingly cast aside your morals when your emotions become too much. It's not like anybody is perfect. I think all humans would eventually cave in to their emotions if pressed too much, but you seem to be saying that if you really hate somebody from the bottom of your gut, you'd kill them without question.

Well, I can say I hate people intensely but none of them had ever wronged me in such a way, so that comparison is irrelevant. If twenty years had passed before I found the person, my hatred would primarily be towards that person twenty years ago, not necessarily towards the person he may be at the moment I found him. It is not so much a question of hatred for the actual person as it is a base desire to reciprocate violent action towards the person who acted similarly towards me.

[MightyJackHammer]

I would get revenge on this poor excuse of an human being,....and make him wish he was dead when I'm done with him.

[BigLundi]

As satisfying as it would be to take revenge, I refuse to become as bad as the person who harmed me. If Justice is how they must be punished, then they will get it, by any means necessary. It's the fair and impartial way to get results.

My one co worker would point out that police and the justice system are useless, and would never help me(in his opinion, just because they apparently don't want to). this is of course, an opinion, and not a fact, but the fact remains for ME that, regardless of if this man gets convicted or not, I wil lat least feel better in knowing I took the high road, and did what I could to place a deserving individual behind bars for something they did to me.

[BezFriend]

At 10/30/10 12:02 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 10/29/10 10:05 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: The perpetrator is likely mentally scarred, so he should be incarcerated and receive psychological treatment. He's a human being, after all.

Are you so naive to think that the majority of people who commit crimes aren't vicious, predatory, lacking self-control, etc., but instead suffer from some mental illness that requires medical treatment? It can be a good thing to have faith in the nobility of men, but making excuses for someone who has done the horrible things you describe is just ridiculuous. Just accept that, for all practical connotations of the word, some people are just evil.

Let me ask you this, in this story, who the evil guy is:

Brian, was very frustrated with his job, so he threatened to quit Mobius corporation if CEO Larry didn't give him a raise. Larry, an old man, was in need of someone like Brian to manage their factory during the Christmas rush. During their discussion, Brian shouted curse words which caused Larry to suffer a heart attack. At that moment while Brian was feeling the neck pulse of Larry, Larry's son - Joshua entered the room and saw "everything". In a fit of anger, he took the scissors lying around the table and stabbed Brian.

Brian's only son, Peter (who lost his mother shortly afterwards), became bitter and planned for revenge.

One lucky day, Peter got his break when Joshua went to a bar and drunk too much alcohol. Peter took Joshua to his basement and tied him up - waiting for him to wake up and be sober. When he did woke up, he saw a bunch of scissors lying around near him - with Peter eyes gazing pleasure at his revenge.

[The next paragraph is censored due to scenes unsuitable for children]

Before Joshua died, he whispered to Peter: "I used the scissor to stop your father from strangling my father. We just lied to you in order for you not to feel bad about your father, to still respect him. He did serve my father loyally for 25 years.

Joshua felt remorseful about his crime so he sent Peter's body back to Peter's son - Abel. Abel, devastated by the death of his father - wasted all his money and his father's inheritance on booze and girls searching for that elusive happiness. He also spent most of his time finding the perpetrator of the crime.

He got a job at a Detective's office so he could find Joshua more efficiently. After 25 years of searching, Abel married Abby who introduced Abel to Cain. With a new lease on life, Abel decided to discontinue his search for vengeance. Instead, together, Abel and Cain, decided to start their own company called Mobius Corporation (at the insistence of Abel). With financial manipulation and tricky accounting, soon, Abel managed to gain significant corporate share to take over the whole corporation.

Unbeknown to all, Cain is the son of Joshua. And the whole story repeats itself again with Cain straggling Abel.

So who is the evil one in this story?

[adrshepard]

At 10/30/10 02:19 PM, Drakim wrote: The whole point is that you are becoming the very thing you despise by doing violence to satisfy your bloodlust, even if you can convince yourself that it's a just and fair bloodlust.

No, I'm not. I don't go around raping and torturing innocent people. I'm making someone pay for what he did, giving him what he deserves. He brought this upon himself. The fact that we both use violence is irrelevant. He could have wronged someone in an nonviolent way and there still could be a case for nonviolent revenge.

You seem literary to be arguing that two wrongs make one right. This person wronged you, and you are outraged and will wrong him back. Problem solved.

It's not a "wrong" to make him suffer in the way he forced others to suffer.

What really should be done, is what is necessary to limit the damage that has been caused and prevent further damage from happening.

Some people deserve to have "damage" inflicted upon them.

Since quotes seem to be in season, take this one from Malcom X: "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

Malcom X is an idiot.

You're right; he should have prostated himself before the mercy of his oppressors like Gandi and MLK Jr. did, depending upon some great white savior for liberation, rather than stand up for himself and his rights like a man.

At 10/30/10 03:34 PM, QuantumPenguin wrote: What sense of satisfaction can you possibly gain from hurting someone, unless you are mentally ill yourself?
The answer is none, what you gain is a sense of security.

Why does everyone try to rationalize revenge? Why does it have to be rational or practical? Is love or laughter have to be rational to be desirable?

[chairmankem]

At 10/30/10 03:34 PM, QuantumPenguin wrote: What sense of satisfaction can you possibly gain from hurting someone, unless you are mentally ill yourself?

You don't necessarily have to be mentally ill to derive pleasure from someone else's misfortune. People do it all the time; however, normal people don't look at it as a main source of entertainment.

The answer is none, what you gain is a sense of security.

But isn't that some form of satisfaction on some level?

At 10/30/10 03:54 PM, BigLundi wrote: As satisfying as it would be to take revenge, I refuse to become as bad as the person who harmed me.

Why would that make you as bad as him? Don't you have a reason for doing it, whereas he doesn't? I'm not necessarily saying that your decision to choose the path of less violence is a wrong one-after all, it would ultimately be your decision-but isn't the concept of one decision being 'higher' than the other purely subjective?

If Justice is how they must be punished, then they will get it, by any means necessary. It's the fair and impartial way to get results.

Justice on an individual level it is meaningless. If your sense of security is fulfilled by relegating decisions to a higher power, so be it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a convenient illusion that we use to prevent the propagation of additional violence.

this is of course, an opinion, and not a fact

Well, duh. The contrary is also an equally valid opinion, but it's still an opinion.

but the fact remains for ME

If it's a fact for you, wouldn't that mean it's an opinion?

At 10/30/10 04:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: Why does everyone try to rationalize revenge? Why does it have to be rational or practical? Is love or laughter have to be rational to be desirable?

Exactly.

[adrshepard]

At 10/30/10 04:00 PM, BezFriend wrote: Let me ask you this, in this story, who the evil guy is:

Brian, was very frustrated with his job...[etc]
Brian's only son, Peter (who lost his mother shortly afterwards), became bitter and planned for revenge.

Well there's the first problem with your absurd parable. What Joshua did wasn't an act of maliciousness, but misunderstanding. Peter was an idiot not to try to learn what happened and why.
Your story doesn't address the moral implications of revenge, only the practical dangers of pursuing it in the real world. I'm not suggesting that it would be good for everyone to seek vengeance on their own. The OP presented a hypothetical example in which the perpetrator is known and the crime is heinous without any conceivable mitigation.

[Drakim]

At 10/30/10 04:02 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 10/30/10 02:19 PM, Drakim wrote: The whole point is that you are becoming the very thing you despise by doing violence to satisfy your bloodlust, even if you can convince yourself that it's a just and fair bloodlust.

No, I'm not. I don't go around raping and torturing innocent people. I'm making someone pay for what he did, giving him what he deserves. He brought this upon himself.

No, you brought it upon him. You saw that he did something wrong and decided to take revenge on him so that he suffers too.

When you don't take enough safety precautions and end up falling over a cliff, you bring that accident upon yourself.

You seem literary to be arguing that two wrongs make one right. This person wronged you, and you are outraged and will wrong him back. Problem solved.

It's not a "wrong" to make him suffer in the way he forced others to suffer.

So how much should he suffer? Since you appointed yourself judge and jury, tell me, if he rapes somebody, how harsh should his punishment be? Should be be raped himself? What if it doesn't bother him as much as his victim? How many times would you need to punch him?

What really should be done, is what is necessary to limit the damage that has been caused and prevent further damage from happening.

Some people deserve to have "damage" inflicted upon them.

This is useless. You keep using soft and intangible words like "deserve" and "wrong" in a way that makes your argument like air, impossible to grab and no substance. Until you actually make a case for your argument, I'm just going to ignore you, because this on the edge of trolling.

Since quotes seem to be in season, take this one from Malcom X: "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

Malcom X is an idiot.

You're right; he should have prostated himself before the mercy of his oppressors like Gandi and MLK Jr. did, depending upon some great white savior for liberation, rather than stand up for himself and his rights like a man.

Malcolm X taught that black people were the original people of the world, and that white people were a race of devils who were created by an evil scientist named Yakub. The Nation of Islam believed that black people were superior to white people, and that the demise of the white race was imminent.

[QuantumPenguin]

At 10/30/10 04:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: Why does everyone try to rationalize revenge? Why does it have to be rational or practical? Is love or laughter have to be rational to be desirable?

Yes, actually.

What, you think laughter is some volition of your "soul" or something? It's not, it's an essential biological process. It has quite a specific rational purpose.

[chairmankem]

At 10/30/10 04:53 PM, QuantumPenguin wrote: What, you think laughter is some volition of your "soul" or something? It's not, it's an essential biological process. It has quite a specific rational purpose.

That's an explanation, not a rationalization.

[The-General-Public]

Revenge in a heartbeat. And that's why we have the police. Average citizens cannot, and should not be expected to make rational decisions in situations like that which you described.

[EclecticEnnui]

At 10/30/10 12:02 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 10/29/10 10:05 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: The perpetrator is likely mentally scarred, so he should be incarcerated and receive psychological treatment. He's a human being, after all.

Are you so naive to think that the majority of people who commit crimes aren't vicious, predatory, lacking self-control, etc., but instead suffer from some mental illness that requires medical treatment? It can be a good thing to have faith in the nobility of men, but making excuses for someone who has done the horrible things you describe is just ridiculuous. Just accept that, for all practical connotations of the word, some people are just evil.

"In 1986 Dr. Lewis and Dr. Pincus published a study of 15 death row inmates that found all had suffered severe head injuries in childhood and about half had been injured by assaults. 6 were chronically psychotic. Far from invoking an "abuse excuse," Dr. Lewis said, all but one had minimized or denied their psychiatric disorders, figuring that it was better to be bad than crazy. Many, she said, had been so traumatized that they could not remember how they had received their scars. The answers had to come from childhood medical records and interviews with family members.

In another study, of 14 juveniles sentenced to death, the researchers found that all had suffered head trauma, most in car accidents but many by beatings as well. 12 had suffered brutal physical abuse, 5 of those sodomized by relatives.

No one suggests that abuse or brain damage makes a murderer, but Dr. Lewis says that while most damaged people do not turn into killers, almost every killer is a damaged person. She concludes that most murderers are shaped by the combination of damage to the brain, particularly to the frontal lobes, which control aggression and impulsiveness, and the even more complex damage visited by repeated, violent child abuse." - Laura Mansnerus. "Damaged Brains and the Death Penalty". The New York Times. 2001.

As for rape, there are factors for it, including psychology. People don't commit crimes like these for no deep reason. As you say, they're vicious, predatory, and lack self-control, but those aren't just the reasons. If you disagree, please give sources with your explanation.

[adrshepard]

At 10/30/10 04:47 PM, Drakim wrote: No, you brought it upon him. You saw that he did something wrong and decided to take revenge on him so that he suffers too.

Yes, which could have been avoided had he not done the wrong thing in the first place.

It's not a "wrong" to make him suffer in the way he forced others to suffer.

So how much should he suffer? Since you appointed yourself judge and jury, tell me, if he rapes somebody, how harsh should his punishment be? Should be be raped himself? What if it doesn't bother him as much as his victim? How many times would you need to punch him?

Why must you drag in terms like "judge" and "jury"? Those are man-made concepts. Vengeance is an internal motivation that doesn't follow any rigid system.
The extent of his suffering is decided on a case-by-case basis. In general, it should rarely exceed what he inflicted upon his victim.

Some people deserve to have "damage" inflicted upon them.

This is useless. You keep using soft and intangible words like "deserve" and "wrong" in a way that makes your argument like air, impossible to grab and no substance. Until you actually make a case for your argument, I'm just going to ignore you, because this on the edge of trolling.

How eles can you make an argument about moral values without going into the abstract? My point is that revenge doesn't make one "just as bad" as the wrongdoer, and that the desire to see bad things happen to bad people isn't something that should be suppressed. To me this is all self-evident. Are you going to tell me you never ever feel the same way?

Malcolm X taught that black people were the original people of the world, and that white people were a race of devils who were created by an evil scientist named Yakub. The Nation of Islam believed that black people were superior to white people, and that the demise of the white race was imminent.

Which is one reason why he left the group later in life, when he realized some of the crazy things the leader of the Nation of Islam had preached to him.

[BigLundi]

At 10/30/10 04:13 PM, chairmankem wrote:

At 10/30/10 03:54 PM, BigLundi wrote: As satisfying as it would be to take revenge, I refuse to become as bad as the person who harmed me.

Why would that make you as bad as him? Don't you have a reason for doing it, whereas he doesn't? I'm not necessarily saying that your decision to choose the path of less violence is a wrong one-after all, it would ultimately be your decision-but isn't the concept of one decision being 'higher' than the other purely subjective?

He DOES have a reason for harming me. Nobody does things for absoljutely zero reason. The reasons may be odd, wrong, and silly, but they are reasons nonetheless. Simply having a more logical reason for violence (I.E. Revenge or Self defense) doesn't make the violence right. though in the case of self Defense, while violence isn't right in that regard, it is also is unavoidable and understandable, where I believe the law understands, and therefore allows.

If Justice is how they must be punished, then they will get it, by any means necessary. It's the fair and impartial way to get results.

Justice on an individual level it is meaningless. If your sense of security is fulfilled by relegating decisions to a higher power, so be it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a convenient illusion that we use to prevent the propagation of additional violence.

It is not meaningless, not to the individual. I agree with the system of law. We are civilized beings today because of laws and the like, and deciding it isn't necessary for the sake of revenge, to me, is a silly compromise to make.

but the fact remains for ME

If it's a fact for you, wouldn't that mean it's an opinion?

It's a fact for me about what would make me feel better. It cannot be proven that somethign else would make me feel better, as I know for a fact, what does.

[Musician]

At 10/30/10 04:47 PM, Drakim wrote: Malcolm X taught that black people were the original people of the world, and that white people were a race of devils who were created by an evil scientist named Yakub. The Nation of Islam believed that black people were superior to white people, and that the demise of the white race was imminent.

I don't agree with most of what adrsheperd has said in this thread, but this bothers me. When you're fighting a revolution you don't always get to choose who you associate yourself with. The Nation of Islam was crazy, but it was a unifying force. And Malcolm X agreed to be a part of it, and to become a mouthpiece for Elijah Muhammad because of this. And he left it when the organization proved itself to be a catalyst for division among the black nationalist movement.

Great leaders have great faults. If you want to dig deep enough, you can make anyone look like an asshole. George Washington was an adultering, slave-owning, war criminal and terrorist. Does that anull all of his accomplishments? Sniping Malcolm X's affiliations is weak, to say the least.

Malcolm X was a great man. A principled muslim, socialist

[Musician]

At 10/31/10 06:03 PM, Musician wrote: Malcolm X was a great man. A principled muslim, socialist

Whoops. Ignore that last part. I had my trollface on

[chairmankem]

At 10/31/10 05:39 PM, BigLundi wrote: He DOES have a reason for harming me. Nobody does things for absoljutely zero reason. The reasons may be odd, wrong, and silly, but they are reasons nonetheless.

Yes, but for all intents and purposes we say he has no good reason to do so.

Simply having a more logical reason for violence (I.E. Revenge or Self defense) doesn't make the violence right.

It is not meaningless, not to the individual. I agree with the system of law.

I'm an individual. It may be meaningless to me if I don't feel satisfied with his imprisonment. If he and I were the only two people on a deserted island, the law is meaningless because I am the only person who might consider enforcing it, even if it were territory of the United States by statute. Law is having someone else settle matters for you.

We are civilized beings today because of laws and the like, and deciding it isn't necessary for the sake of revenge, to me, is a silly compromise to make.

Civilized? Who's to make that judgement as to what is civilized anyway? Also, isn't the authority of a government derived from the consent of the governed? The only reason that should stop me from doing whatever I want is that of other people, and in this scenario, I am presented with the choice to take the law into my own hands and get away with it so I would exercise that option.